Talk:Previously on 24/Season 5
Good job This was absolutely perfect. Great job, Bacchus!!!--Conspiracy Unit 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Pictures Why is someone changing the pictures for the Previouslies? I think it made perfect sense to have a Season 5 picture for Logan in Season 5, etc. OneWeirdDude 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) : Actually, what these should be is the actual freezeframe from each individual episode with the character's name beside them, rather than the exact same photo two dozen times. Anyone up for that project? --Proudhug 15:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC) :: I rather think that might be too much to handle, and the quality of might be worse than we have. Mightn't we settle for my idea? OneWeirdDude 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) : What do you mean too much to handle? Personally, I think the pictures on these pages are entirely pointless unless they're the actual screenshots from the episodes. At the very least they need to all be the same size. Currently, the page looks really ugly with all the pics of random sizes and random style and quality. --Proudhug 19:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC) :: I don't know about that. My original idea, I think, looked better: the characters had a season-specific picture, modified according to their current state, like when Secretary Heller was/wasn't in custody of the terrorists. If nothing else, though, the quality of these current shots could be improved. One would have a difficult time making things out. OneWeirdDude 19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC) In what way could they possibly be improved? There is no way we can revert all this now. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC) : I'm not seeing your argument at all. The pictures are still season-specific—even more specific, as a matter of fact. They're exact stills taken from the previous episode, with the character name printed right in the screencap. What could be more ideal and specific than this? I don't agree about the quality, either. I've got 1920x1200 resolution and I can still make out the faces fine. If I couldn't, I could just click on the photo to enlarge it. Does anyone else disagree with me that the current format looks way better? --Proudhug 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC) I 100% agree with you Proudhug, probably demonstated by the fact that I uploaded all the pictures! :) --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 19:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC) : The new version is certainly the best choice in my opinion. I follow what OneWeird is saying, but it would be like taking 10 steps backward, and taking many days to do it. : If anything could be done to improve the current version, I would like to crop away the leftover black space that always appears either above or below the characters' faces. There is also excess black space near the letters in almost every case. I am completely aware that this is how the title cards exactly appeared, but if there was some quick-&-easy way to crop them, I'd do it. It would make the images render bigger and more clearly, and probably even reduce filesize. It just ain't easy to do. – Blue Rook 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)talk :: All right, I relent, but I also agree with Blue Rook's last comment. The "name tags", while nice and part of the title card, are indeed redundant. (Er, I guess that's all I had to say.) OneWeirdDude 20:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC) You think the name tags are redundant, but the exact same picture twenty three times isn't redundant? --Proudhug 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC) :Certainly not, but common pictures look better, even if they don't look informative. OneWeirdDude 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC) :: No no, I never said the nametags are redundant. The names are really important. Just the black space is no good in my opinion. – Blue Rook 20:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)talk :::Yes the names are important, but they're still redundant, unless they're of more than one person, or of CTU. (Then again, I guess that means they aren't, eh? Or at least in those cases.) OneWeirdDude 21:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)